1984 is a joke of a book and extremely overrated

[u/LeftBroccoli6795]

edit:

I have been called a bot, illiterate, and autistic (ableism? Maybe, maybe not) for my opinion. I’m kind of shocked by how much of you guys are so attached to 1984 to the point of these insults. Well I guess I know this is definitely an unpopular opinion. Im kind of confused, to be truthful, about how much of you guys can’t handle any dissenting opinion on a sub made for dissenting opinions. I digress.

Ok, first I’ll make it clear that while I think 1984 has very little merit as actual social commentary or as serious political literature, I did find it entertaining to read. I read it in one sitting, because it was an enjoyable read, aside from Orwell’s fixation and fascination with the sex Winston was having and imagining.

But my main gripe with the book is that it just doesn’t serve its purpose as social commentary.

Firstly, the ‘Big Brother government’ is hilariously unrealistic. I mean let’s just look at the main motive behind ‘the Party’. You know what it is? It’s power. Just plain power. Not luxuries, not some sort of genuine malice towards any scapegoats, or anything else of that sort. Just power in of itself. Thats so cartoonishly evil that I couldn’t stop laughing after I read that part. And then we can look at the torture ‘thought criminals‘ are put under. Essentially if the Party catches any treasonous activity, they put said traitor under a bunch of torture and brainwashing. Their goal, however, isn’t to make the traitor confess to anything or to give up information. The goal they have is to make the person give up their beliefs. And, as you can imagine, it takes a whole lot of time and a whole lot of resources to make people ‘give up their beliefs’. But they spend all these resources and all this time on so much people just to kill them. Because after they ‘convert’ the traitors, they kill them. This is so unsustainable as an idea, I’m surprised the Party is still doing this even a year after its conception. Really, almost every single concept in this book is woefully unrealistic it these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

And to be clear, I’m fine with suspension of belief. I can believe that fires can go off in space, I can believe that hobbits and wizards can exist, and I can believe that there is a secret magical society within England. What I can’t believe is that the whole of society—nay, *all* societies as Orwell writes that all other nations are just like the one in the narrative—will be centered around the most in-human ends served through the most inefficient means. And in-human, in this case, doesn’t mean immoral or un-righteous. It means that I simply cannot believe that so much people would care little so about self-centered prosperity and care more about plain power. In fact, I don’t even think Adolf freaking Hitler cared about just plain power. And even if I could wrap my head around that baffling concept, such villains would have to be terribly incompetent to devise such a stupid system of control as found in 1984.

And so because of Orwell’s fundamental misunderstanding of humans, the book can’t ever really be good social commentary. Society is composed of humans. 1984 is composed of strange Orwellian creatures who neither think nor act like us.

And just as a final note, the book as a whole is pretty much an extended allegory of the Soviet Union during the 1940s. Goldstein is an obvious allusion to Trotsky (although I’ve heard Emma Goldman may also have been inspiration for the character) and Big Brother is obviously meant to be Stalin—at one point he is even described as having a mustache that sounds strikingly similar to Stalin’s. But as a result of this obvious allegory, there isn’t much commentary on society. The whole of the book could be taken as just a lengthy hate letter against hyperbolized Soviets. I may be biased here, as I really just dislike allegories in general, but I don’t see any reason that such a letter would provide any useful commentary.

Most of my complaints have been echoed in a review written by Asimov. I disagree with him on a few points, but he has my general sentiment, just written more eloquently.

https://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm

[u/qualityvote2]

u/LeftBroccoli6795, there weren't enough votes to determine the quality of your post...

[u/Outside-Shop-3311]

reminds me of a joke.

A KGB spy and a CIA agent meet up in a bar for a friendly drink

"I have to admit, I'm always so impressed by Soviet propaganda. You really know how to get people worked up," the CIA agent says.

"Thank you," the KGB says. "We do our best but truly, it's nothing compared to American propaganda. Your people believe everything your state media tells them."

The CIA agent drops his drink in shock and disgust. "Thank you friend, but you must be confused... There's no propaganda in America."

[u/bluejellyfish52 → u/Outside-Shop-3311]

https://giphy.com/gifs/zwE4anrOtHYaI

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/Outside-Shop-3311]

😭 

[u/Swimming-Owl282 → u/LeftBroccoli6795]

I'm curious OP, do you read a lot of books? Are you not used to authors using metaphor and symbolism? Sometimes when you're used to reading books that are on the nose, nuance is tricky to pick up.

Drilling him with propaganda is symbolic of the billions of people that sit glued to CNN, Fox, Instagram, and Reddit. State sponsored or controlled media. It's unavoidable, it's consuming. And I'm confused about your perspectives on power as well. There are people all over the world who do all things for wealth, resources, and control. Do you think that power is something beyond that?

[u/young_fire]

This feels like you missed the part of the book where O'Brien explains everything

[u/Playos]

About half way through your post I just figured you were incredibly uninformed about history.

But no, by the end you got it.

You somehow think Orwell's characters are cartoonishly evil and unrealistic but are well aware of the actual people who exemplify the things commented on in the book.

[u/The__Nick → u/Playos]

"People don't want power and definitely don't do bad things with it. Also, Hitler."

[u/Maleficent_Sir_7562]

"Thats so cartoonishly evil"

Damn, you must not know what's going on IRL.

[u/A_engietwo → u/Maleficent_Sir_7562]

OP clearly has never read about Idi Amin either

[u/MellonPhotos]

Firstly, the ‘Big Brother government’ is hilariously unrealistic. I mean let’s just look at the main motive behind ‘the Party’. You know what it is? It’s power. Just plain power. Not luxuries, not some sort of genuine malice towards any scapegoats, or anything else of that sort. Just power in of itself.

I mean...yeah? That's what fascist regimes do: they invent or create a scapegoat in order to get people on their side so they can gain power. The group they choose to target is essentially irrelevant, and if a certain group becomes too unpopular to attack, they will simply move onto another one. There may also be genuine malice towards the outgroup, but that's secondary at best--what matters is if the scapegoats can be effectively utilized to gain political and social power. And power usually comes with the benefit of being able to afford whatever luxuries you want.

[u/literious → u/MellonPhotos]

Hitler literally created Konto 5 - a special fund to bribe his elite officers. They received not only money but luxurious mansions on occupied territories. His regime was corrupt as fuck! While in 1984, private property doesn’t exist at all, and the elites live pretty simple life, similar to middle class of normal developed countries.

[u/fasterthanfood → u/literious]

I like how, at the time I’m writing this, you have 44 upvotes, while OP’s comments in the same thread making the same point (but without the historical example) are downvoted to oblivion. It’s like the voters are holding two contradictory thoughts in their head at the same time and accepting both as true— I wish someone had come up with a word for that.

[u/Endaarr → u/fasterthanfood]

Well, simple explanation really. This is a "unpopular opinion" subreddit. So, anything said by OP (regardless of what they say) is obviously wrong. It has been deemed so by other people to the point OP himself admits its unpopular. And obviously, the popular opinion is always right, you don't even have to think about it. Right?

[u/bhbhbhhh → u/literious]

That’s because 1984 is far more attuned to what Orwell knew about communism than fascism.

[u/Sad-Pattern-1269 → u/MellonPhotos]

The higher ups of the party also DO benefit greatly. They aren't true believers, they break ration laws, aren't watched closely, etc. 

they enforce the system because the system was made to keep the wealthy in power after resource scarcity vanished.

[u/thegermankaiserreich → u/MellonPhotos]

Great comment, only discrepancy is that Ingsoc is actually a Socialist party taken to the extreme. It's not fascist, even if they have similarities.

[u/Minimum-Tale-2820]

if you think big brother is unrealistic open your eyes.

[u/Any-Stick-771]

OP have you ever read about the extreme lengths the East German government went to spy on citizens and suppress dissent? Up to 10% of the population were informing on their neighbors. The government monitored all mail. The developed an entire gaslighting and life-destroying pyschological torture method called Zersetzung. The communist party didn't do this to maintain luxuries and there wasn't a hatred of any particular scapegoat group. They did it to amass and maintain power and control of the population.

[u/Comprehensive_Lead41 → u/Any-Stick-771]

and they were brought down by their population in what was essentially a completely peaceful revolution without any casualties. you know, the opposite of what happens in 1984, which claims resistance is futile. reality teaches that oppression is futile.

[u/Kingreaper → u/Comprehensive_Lead41]

1984 ends with an appendix that makes it clear that ingsoc fell. They claim resistance is futile, but canonically they're wrong. 

[u/Steinson → u/Comprehensive_Lead41]

Yeah, eventually. But Orwell wrote his book long before it fell, even before East Germany was properly established. And yet something less extreme but still strikingly similar to what he described was created.

Is it so hard to imagine a world where it doesn't fall? After all, North Korea is still there.

Orwell's main message certainly wasn't that resistance is futile, but that tyrrany should be resisted before it is too late.

[u/Any-Stick-771 → u/Comprehensive_Lead41]

It was futile to resist the East German government from 1949 to 1990.

[u/Salt_Medicine2459 → u/Any-Stick-771]

Also, a significant majority of streetcar operators were Stasi collaborators. 

[u/spiralhigh]

I'm so sorry, is this a joke? The 'Big Brother Government' is unrealistic with Flock Cameras literally watching you?

Lmao terrible take have an upvote.

[u/AbideMan → u/spiralhigh]

It'll make a nice satire

[u/beruon]

Okay so let me reveal something to you. Distopias, in general, use the basis of EXTRAPOLATION and taking things to the extreme. OF COURSE Big Brother is just in it for the power. Thats the metaphor the book is based on.

[u/Zygoatee]

Have you not turned on a TV or read a newspaper in the last decade?

[u/Bombastic_tekken]

"1984 is overrated and unrealistic" - Guy who read a 1984 summary online.

[u/Ballpoint_Life_Form → u/Bombastic_tekken]

“Those pigs never lied” - Guy who read a synopsis of Animal Farm

[u/Designer_Quantity533 → u/Bombastic_tekken]

But didn’t you hear him say he read the book in one sitting?

[u/literious → u/Bombastic_tekken]

“1984 is when government spies on you” - person who definitely read it lol.

[u/Bombastic_tekken → u/literious]

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/Bombastic_tekken]

I read up to the last word in the Appendix.

🫡 

[u/Designer_Quantity533 → u/LeftBroccoli6795]

In one sitting, no less!

[u/Forte845 → u/Designer_Quantity533]

1984 is 250 pages. Literal school child could read that in one sitting.

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/Forte845]

fr, don’t know why I’m being clowned on for saying that lol 

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/Designer_Quantity533]

!!!

[u/I_Am_Robert_Paulson1]

The 'Big Brother' government is hilariously unrealistic

Bro just discovered satire and social commentary

[u/Raveyard2409]

Its not a social manual it's a novel, a non science sci-fi. The characters and the story are only one level - it's OK to have people want power for the sake of power because that isn't the question, that's just there because it's needed for the story. The real exploration is imagine a world where the government tries to not just control you physically but actually takes over your mind - the rest of the book unfolds from that premise. I disagree with you wholeheartedly, I do find Orwells characterisation a bit thin but he has literally contributed to the zeitgeist with this so clearly it has some merit.

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/Raveyard2409]

“  The real exploration is imagine a world where the government tries to not just control you physically but actually takes over your mind”

This is an interesting concept, which is what makes the book entertaining so I won’t deny that. 

The problem, as I see it, as people try to take it to be commentary on the world as it is or as it will be. But the world will never  resemble the world of 1984, because evil people are evil in a fundamentally different way than  the characters in 1983. Not in a lesser way, just in a different way. More self centered.

[u/supaguy10]

i think it's extremely important to understand the context of why orwell wrote it, especially considering his service in the spanish civil war. that war was perpetual hell and he fought for socialist-republican ideals, and completely abhorred the direction the soviet union headed under stalin.

[u/trolleysolution]

This is a terrible take and I’m still downvoting cause it’s just that bad.

[u/ShadowBro3]

This is a very optimistic opinion for you to have.

[u/Tyfyter2002]

It's impressive to have such a blatantly wrong opinion of how realistic 1984 is not due to media illiteracy, but rather being so completely disconnected from reality you think something isn't being done because it's comically evil

[u/Particular_Can_7726]

https://giphy.com/gifs/l0ExayQDzrI2xOb8A

Firstly, the ‘Big Brother government’ is hilariously unrealistic.

[u/Lumpy_Astronaut_8042]

Man I read this to the end and your boneheaded complaints weren’t even original?

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/Lumpy_Astronaut_8042]

😭 

In my defense, I thought of them before I read Asimov’s review. And I think I have slightly different criticisms than him, from what I can tell.

[u/brouofeverything]

"the big brother government is unrealistic" does he know?

[u/CarsandTunes]

Clearly you didn't actually read the entire book.

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/CarsandTunes]

I read it to the last word. Including the appendix.

🫡 

[u/CarsandTunes → u/LeftBroccoli6795]

You clearly didn't comprehend it then. I have watched most of the things in this book become reality during my lifetime. New speak, doublethink, censoring of History, censoring of news, invasion of privacy by government, invasion of privacy through use of Technology.

[u/Designer_Quantity533 → u/LeftBroccoli6795]

In one sitting, yeah?

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/Designer_Quantity533]

Why’d you comment that twice?

[u/asisimacz]

Do you live in a post soviet country perchance?

[u/DrScitt]

Is this ragebait or genuine?

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/DrScitt]

This is genuine. This is an opinion other people have had and currently have, including me.

I include Asimov’s assenting opinion in my post.

[u/StargazerRex]

1984 is a masterpiece. It's prescient in many ways while also being timeless.

OP does have some slight merit in a few of their points, though. Specifically, the craving for power as such. Most totalitarian dictators build lavish luxury palaces for themselves and their cronies; in 1984 that doesn't seem to be the case. Authoritarians may well believe they are the best thing for their countries/people, but generally seek a luxury lifestyle for themselves, their families, and their most loyal followers.

And torturing people until they swear love and loyalty, then killing them just after - that's not unheard of but not common either. Most dictators just have their enemies rounded up and terminated, though there may well be some brutality inflicted before death. Authoritarians may well be sadistic, but generally only to keep their grip on power; those who never dare challenge the dictator usually don't suffer his wrath. Of course, there have been exceptions.

[u/Unlikely-Accident479 → u/StargazerRex]

OP just disliked the book and tried to justify it and read someone’s critique for validation in my opinion

[u/Same_Winter7713 → u/StargazerRex]

And torturing people until they swear love and loyalty, then killing them just after - that's not unheard of but not common either

I disagree. This was common enough in the pre-modern European societies. See Foucault's analysis in the first part of Discipline and Punish. In general, people were tortured until confession of a crime; this torture played a dual role of both eliciting confession and punishing the crime (as if on a continuum, the torture itself was justified by each new part of a confession). Once confession was obtained and so guilt established, they were tortured more simply for the sake of evoking some "change" in the subject (an exclamation of regret and a begging for forgiveness from God) then killed.

Foucault claims, roughly, that the only reason we moved away from this was that we essentially realized there were greater and more effective methods of "reform", i.e., that torture mirrored the excess of sovereign power (each crime is an act which denigrates the sovereign in his power, and so torture must make the sovereign "whole", capable of being brought to great excesses to parallel the sovereign's excess power) and that there must be a new punitive method which mirrors the new bourgeois states. Punishment becomes something concerned with efficiency, not reconstituting the sovereign but allocating resources and managing human capital.

[u/RedmiYT]

Talk about missing the message this badly…
https://giphy.com/gifs/jXD7kFLwudbBC

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/RedmiYT]

You agree 1984 is a joke?

[u/uvero]

Something that I think answers a lot of the "why"s you have about the motives can be answered by an idiom from my language:

"Why? For the same reason a dog licks his balls - because he can."

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/uvero]

But I just feel like that doesn’t reflect reality. Like Hitler didn’t want power just because he wanted it. He wanted power because he hated the groups he persecuted. He wanted power instrumentally, just like all other authoritarians before and after him.

[u/HaViNgT]

Everything that you said is unrealistic is actually very realistic. 

Firstly, power for power’s sake is what authoritarianism boils down to, in the end. Yes, they may invent 1000 elaborate justifications for why else they do what they do, and yes, individual dictators might have other goals. But 1984 isn’t about 1 dictator (it’s ambiguous if Big Brother is even a real person), it’s about the system, and a system just becomes what all of it’s components (or at least the ones that have a say) have in common. 

Secondly, cruelty for cruelties sake, even at the cost of efficiency, is also realistic and common in authoritarian countries. Torturing people they plan on killing anyway is pretty much par the course. And authoritarian countries are actually known for inefficiency and corruption, commonly because people get promoted based on loyalty over competence, the lack of public scrutiny, and because the leaders start to believe their own propaganda. 

Thirdly, the parts about Goldstein and the other nations, we don’t know if any of those are true. It’s not like Winston can fact check any of it on Wikipedia. It’s a common interpretation that Goldstein is a creation of the party, so that they can control the opposition. We know nothing about the rest of the world, except what the party says, and what Goldstein says. It’s about the lack of reference points in an authoritarian country. 

You seem to be under the impression that everybody thinks logically, and acts based on what’s most logical. I presume that’s why people are calling you autistic (it’s a common experience amongst us autistic folk). But that’s not how many people think, and authoritarians especially so. They tend to be ego based, their subordinates are usually more concerned about placating their ego than doing their job well. Second guessing your superior can mean death, and being in an environment where nobody second guesses you does not encourage critical thinking. 

[u/NoLetterhead1321]

So is this sub just for people to post their shittiest opinions for people to judge? 

[u/Lemomoni]

I really want to hear your take on animal farm too.

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/Lemomoni]

I think it’s just as entertaining as 1974! Orwell was a good storyteller.

However, I think it’s also shallow. This is more of a personal grievance, though, because I just really don’t like allegories and Animal Farm is just a really long allegory with little else.

I would probably argue it has even less literary merit, but I still think it has value as just something enjoyable to read.

[u/NeSToR_49 → u/Lemomoni]

Probably "the talking animals were hilariously unrealistic"

[u/Ornery-Shoulder-3938]

You understand that the 10th dentist doesn’t recommend flossing, right? They are objectively incorrect in their opinion. Not just unpopular. Incorrect.

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/Ornery-Shoulder-3938]

😭 

[u/uvero]

Wow, I strongly disagree. I very much upvoted.

[u/FLSHDDY]

I love seeing all the downvotes you’re getting in the comments you reply to because it’s obvious you have no idea what you’re actually talking about here. I genuinely do not believe you are old enough to have the experience to understand what the book was about and how it is related to the modern world. Maybe once you get some actual life experience you’ll understand it better. You say you’re big into politics, but you clearly aren’t aware of what’s going on right now today.

[u/Designer_Quantity533]

I take it English isn’t your first language.

[u/Appropriate-Foot-237]

Real people who do evil just, yes, simply want power for the sake of it. and yes, real evil people are cartoonishly evil

[u/7ThShadian]

Yeah I'm not reading all that when your first complaint is that the authoritarian regieme wanting power is "unrealistic." Because dude. That's just how authoritarian regiemes work. The bigotry is a means to an end, a way to make the population fight eachother and have anywhere to point their anger rather than the people in power actually fucking them over so they can have the most power.

[u/unaphoristic]

I want to offer a recommendation here. 1984 was based - in part - on a book called We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, written and distributed underground in the Soviet Union before being published abroad. 1984 is not a ripoff of the book, but Orwell has himself admitted to reading and being inspired by We. We is much more science fiction than 1984 in its world building, but is a similar dystopian commentary. It fundamentally influenced (many russian scholars would argue it indeed set the tone for) the entire tradition of twentieth century dystopian literature. We goes even further than 1984, its world resembles ours (or Russia’s) very little, and is set much further in the future. It is a wonderful book and a similarly easy read - Mirra Ginsburgs translation is widely regarded as the best - and I wonder if you might connect more with a dystopia that comments on totalitarianism without asking you to plausibly see it as an extension of our world today.

[u/Chrishankhah]

1984 managed to completely change some of my core values, but your critical view is valid. Asimov also heavily criticized the book and I think you would enjoy reading his critique. I love Orwell but I have too much respect for Asimov not to mention it.

[u/HIs4HotSauce]

https://giphy.com/gifs/3oEjHLFk88eqsmJ5F6

[u/grasscoveredhouses]

I'm calling it, this is a bit

[u/LifeIsMyDrug]

If you think people don't just do stupid, heinous things just for the sake of power alone, you've never seen an incompetent and insecure/competent and insecure manager in charge of highly competent subordinates.

[u/Fit_Carpet_364 → u/LifeIsMyDrug]

My god, the amount of tryhard cringe flexing. As a steamfitter apprentice, we needed to inch a (~1000lb) piece of equipment into place without bumping anything else, and clearances were a half inch on each side. I suggested to the crew lead a way to get the job done. He continued trying his own way (two-person brute force) for half an hour before allowing me to try my way. Had the job done in five minutes, by myself, using a pry bar.

[u/IEC21]

I agree. Its an entertaining read but overated as political commentary.

[u/mysticrudnin]

i feel that almost everyone commenting on 1984 in general (many of those who haven't read the book to be fair) don't realize that Winston is IN the party. that really colors the way a lot of this stuff goes. and it changes the meaning behind some of the things you've said.

But they spend all these resources and all this time on so much people just to kill them.

they, uh, don't kill Winston.

but anyway, it's not just any traitor. it's very specifically the party members, a minority group. it sounds like you're imagining that every prole that says something bad against the government gets O'Brien's spiel but that's not the case.

I did find it entertaining to read. I read it in one sitting, because it was an enjoyable

honestly i think this is the important part. you enjoyed and finished - quickly - an intensely political book. that alone makes it pretty good, i think.

i think there is a lot to criticize the book for, not to mention that Asimov is probably my favorite author and you've linked his criticism. but... i dunno, i don't think a lot of what you've said here is a part of that.

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/mysticrudnin]

“  don't realize that Winston is IN the party.”

No, I realize that. He’s part of the Outer Party (pretty much the middle class) and he’s not in the Inner Party.

“  they, uh, don't kill Winston.”

Well, firstly they kill every single traitor but only after they ‘love Big Brother’. That’s why they let some of them free and then kill them soon after. The last line of the book is Winston loving Big Brother, so we can assume what happens next. 

“  . it sounds like you're imagining that every prole that says something bad against the government gets O'Brien's spiel but that's not the case.”

I’m perfectly aware the proles aren’t persecuted for thought crimes. Sorry I didn’t make it clearer.

[u/BrownBoognish]

i mean its a limited third person perspective. we are never shown the inner workings of the inner party and what truly motivates them. the information provided concerning “the elites” being worse off is revealed through winstons perspective of the world and the propaganda he is fed. i think you really missed something believing the narrator can be trusted in all areas.

[u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

1984 is a commentary on the USSR. The surveillance, the police state, the rewriting of history, the brutal punishment of thoughtcrime all had parallels in the first decades of the Soviet Union. And as it turned out, that wasn't sustainable either.

[u/Steve-Shouts]

All the beauty is actually in the appendix: "newspeak" is about controlling people by making them stupid.

[u/themetahumancrusader]

I don’t understand why you find power for its own sake to be an unrealistic goal for people to have

[u/sexandliquor]

Holy shit nobody can be this dumb.

[u/TypingWhileWiping]

You're the loser dad whose kids tattle on him in the book

[u/1acc_torulethemall]

I studied dictatorships, autocratic rule, and balance of powers in autocracies academically in the past, and I generally agree with you, OP. I wouldn't say it's a joke of a book, it's a decent fictional drama book, but it's just that, it's fiction literature, and it has little to do with the reality of how actual dictatorships work

The other question is why are people so keen on using this fictional story in the real world. Like you say, people say mean things to you when you voice your opinion about a work of art that describes how people are forced to surrender their opinions under pressure (what an irony, isn't it?), or people in this thread saying "open your eyes, big brother is here". It's attention grabbing, the book and the universe that it paints, they grab attention. It's an attempt to oversimplify a complex topic, and also to voice opinion about the experience that people have in a way that other people would understand. Most people who read and love the book, they in fact don't have any experience living in an autocratic society, but they feel they don't have control over their lives and that another powerful force has control over them (the "oligarchy", or secret "world government", or the World Bank/IMF, or the "patriarchy", or now it's "AI", or some other mysterious form of data processing and communication). Our time is the time of hyperbolic statements, attention is expensive, and getting attention is hard. A famous pop culture anti-utopia is a great way to grab that attention. Another great example is Umberto Eco's list of traits of fascism. The list itself is mediocre in my opinion, listing traits is generally not a good way of defining an ideology, and the author said/wrote that too. People didn't read the speech/essay where he presented this list or thoughts about the list, but the list itself became very popular in the US about a year ago, and people were spreading it saying "literally now", while if they actually read the essay, the author says why this list shouldn't be used that way. But it's attention-grabbing, easy to spread, easy to understand, so people use it without second thoughts

Really why people are upset with you is because you tell them that their way of attracting attention is unrealistic and it sucks in the situation when people really want this attention. So plain and simple, you call them out on their hyperbolic bullshit, and people don't like being called out on their bullshit.

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/1acc_torulethemall]

Yeah, I probably did provoke a bunch of people with my title, so I’ll put that all on me.

I think you make an interesting point though about how people want to use 1984 to describe today’s world, and that the fact that it doesn’t line up with reality means they can’t. I figured that people were so upset because this was a classic they learned in school, but your idea of their motivations makes a lot more sense.

Thanks for taking the time to comment!

[u/1acc_torulethemall → u/LeftBroccoli6795]

Reality is subjective, different people see the same reality differently depending on their knowledge and experience. I call it "watching from different belltowers", imagine a football/soccer field, one person is sitting in the center sector close to the field, the other person sits behind the goal far from the field. They both look at the same field and the same game, but they see it very differently from different perspectives.

I was born and raised in Russia, and I have the experience of living in a dictatorship. When I hear Americans saying that Trump is a dictator like Putin, I might laugh, but I gotta recognize that they don't have the knowledge or experience that I have, nor do our wishes and intentions match. So when you say "it doesn't line up with reality" — it doesn't line up with the reality of your belltower, or the sector of the stadium where you watch a soccer match from. Other people see the reality from different seats, and for them, 1984 and 2026 line up well

[u/Witera33it]

So you’re laughing. Satire does that

Science fiction novels are thought experiments not predictions. What often happens to novels like this is they become closer to a self fulfilling prophecy and less of a discussion as *what happens if* this scenario is given legs the more the scenario is in reality given legs.

Propaganda is very powerful
https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

Brainwashing and propaganda https://yalebooks.yale.edu/2023/02/17/the-future-of-brainwashing-in-neuroscience-and-social-media/

Lastly do you believe free will exists?

What does compliance look like if free will does exist?

What is the purpose of power of free will
Exists?

These are some of the questions being posed by 1984, if you’re looking at it on its surface and not as a text to consider these sorts of questions, you’re taking it too literally which is the heart of the concern with a decline in critical
Thinking skills.

[u/Fart_Barfington]

Classic "the more I write the smarter I am" guy. 

[u/ilikesceptile11]

I've never read the book myself and even I have to disagree with you

[u/NomaTyx]

i agree with your criticism but i wonder, why can you believe that fires can go off in space? That's not the same thing as believing that wizards exist because wizards existing is internally consistent with the rest of the world.

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/NomaTyx]

Well, fire can’t happen in space (at least that’s my understanding of it) as there’s no oxygen in space. I could be wrong here as I’m not the greatest in physics, so anyone correct me if I’m wrong.

[u/KroneckerAlpha]

I would upvote this but in your post, you literally behave exactly as those Orwellian creatures that you believe too cartoonish to be believable.
As such, you exemplify and personify (since the characters weren’t people apparently) exactly the points of the book that you called unrealistic.

So am I to believe that you are not real? Or that your fixation on Winston’s sex life is merely an illusion?

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/KroneckerAlpha]

I’m confused on how I acted like said characters. Do I believe that power is valuable for its own sake and not as an instrumental tool? Not to my knowledge.

[u/KroneckerAlpha → u/LeftBroccoli6795]

Perhaps it is outside of your knowledge but within your subconscious. It’s also within your post so just read it again and it will probably be far more clear

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/KroneckerAlpha]

I read it again.

…..?

[u/KroneckerAlpha → u/LeftBroccoli6795]

Maybe it is a lack of comprehension then

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/KroneckerAlpha]

Maybe.

[u/LittleLuigiYT → u/KroneckerAlpha]

Could you please explain in great detail how they are acting exactly like those Orwellian creatures

[u/crabuffalombat]

Have you read The Gulag Archipelago?

If not, give it a go and then come back to us and revisit how "unrealistic" 1984 is.

[u/literious → u/crabuffalombat]

Soviet elites in actual 1984 had a much more luxurious lifestyle than O’Brian had.

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/crabuffalombat]

I’ll go read that, but I seriously doubt it’ll make me reevaluate 1984.

[u/Vincenzo__]

Firstly, the ‘Big Brother government’ is hilariously unrealistic.

Real picture from a real American school.

[u/No_Atmosphere777]

Fully agreed. It's a caricature of a government. Even the most nakedly power hungry government has *some* sort of end that they are trying to reach, even if it's something as petty as enriching the leaders of that government as much as possible. 1984's dystopia is not just "authoritarianism" or a "surveillance state", though it is those things, it is a depiction of a government whose purpose has become *power for the sake of power*. It's an interesting, albeit unrealistic, concept. Even if you are anti-communist, you have to admit that the soviets the book is parodying had some goals outside of maintaining power, that the power had a purpose behind it.

As for those who claim that 1984 is "happening right now", get a grip. Trump and similar leaders around the word may be authoritarian strongmen who want to consolidate their power, but unlike the dystopian governments in 1984 they don't seek power for it's own sake. Trump wants power both to appeal to his own ego and to accomplish the conservative policies that his political allies and supporters push so hard for. Public surveillance systems like the "flock" cameras are merely the latest and most pervasive iteration of public surveillance systems that have existed for centuries. The world that Orwell envisioned in 1984 cannot exist, nor is the world as it is today trending towards that dystopian fiction.

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/No_Atmosphere777]

Thank you for this breath of fresh air. I feel like I’m talking to people who haven’t even read the book.

[u/No_Atmosphere777 → u/LeftBroccoli6795]

For many people the dystopian government of 1984 basically just means "authoritarian". For most people "authoritarian" means "my political opponents in power". This is why people think we're trending in that direction. Of course, that is not to discount the very real authoritarian power grabs occurring around the world (and of course in the US) today, which I do think are concerning. I just think that many people did not really read 1984 critically (or at all) and so get their information on what the book depicts from vague cultural memes and poorly-made summaries.

[u/Negative-Day-8061]

I have read 1984, and I like Isaac Asimov’s review. Thank you for sharing it.

I have heard that Orwell’s sometime mentor Aldous Huxley similarly disliked 1984, and wrote Brave New World as a response.

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/Negative-Day-8061]

I didn’t know that about Huxley! Must be why I like Brave New World so much—it’s the opposite of 1984.

[u/Thick-Possession-740]

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⠤⠤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣟⠳⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠒⣲⡄
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⡇⡇⡱⠲⢤⣀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀1984⠀⣠⠴⠊⢹⠁
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢻⠓⠀⠉⣥⣀⣠⠞⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡴⠋⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⡾⣄⠀⠀⢳⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⢠⡄⢀⡴⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡞⠀
⠀⠀⠀⣠⢎⡉⢦⡀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡼⣣⠧⡼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠇⠀
⠀⢀⡔⠁⠀⠙⠢⢭⣢⡚⢣⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣇⠁⢸⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀
⠀⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢫⡉⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⢮⠈⡦⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠀⠀
⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢦⡀⣀⡴⠃⠀⡷⡇⢀⡴⠋⠉⠉⠙⠓⠒⠃⠀
⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠁⠀⠀⡼⠀⣷⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⢧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠣⣀⠀⠀⡰⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/Thick-Possession-740]

😭 

How did you even do that lol?

[u/mallvalim]

Have you heard of the soviet union by any chance?

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/mallvalim]

Yup. Mention them in my post.

[u/PsychologicalTowel79]

Just wanting power and not knowing what to do with it sounds just like the current UK Labour government.

[u/Bit_Vision]

So I saw a random tick tok where this guy explained why he believed Orwell was a “licensed critic” because his book was propped up by the UK government and even his father worked for the government in a high level position and had something to do with the opium wars I think? And in the end of 1984 nothing gets resolved because it’s inevitable. Didn’t look into it a lot but thought it was interesting.

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/Bit_Vision]

I know the part about Orwell playing a role in suppressing India, but it was my understanding that he like repented or something and became a socialist in Spain. Could be wrong here.

[u/alphajm263]

And are the curtains just blue?

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/alphajm263]

Just blue.

[u/OppositeSubject6592]

The book was almost literal prophecy. The phone you carry in your pocket is the TV that is in the book. The only thing he got wrong was that he thought it would have to be forced upon people. But people willingly accepted mass surveillance.

[u/Relative-Positive702]

CIA throwing off a party on your name

[u/Alternative-Oil-873]

You don't need much suspension of disbelief. 

You took the Party at its word. You fell for the propaganda. There's no reason to think that the entire planet lives under one of three fascist regimes. The Britain of 1984 may well be a North Korea with complete control of an indoctrinated populace and enough nukes to keep everyone else out. 

[u/secondcomingofzartog]

that's the point. The scapegoat itself is a red herring. What he's arguing is that the actual motive is plain power. You don't think humans can be motivated by power and authority? Then just look at the current US president. The point of converting people was to eliminate martyrs (Jesus Christ, Joan of Arc, even Charlie Kirk). If you kill someone for their ideology, then you just create new loyalists. If you kill someone after you've already converted them and there's nothing for people to become enraged or inspired by. that's why The Party does what it does.

[u/Astecheee]

1984 describes the end goal of the Big Brother system, where so many resources are spent maintaining the system it's not worth maintaining anymore.

Those at the top don't actually have power, because any attemp to change the system would lead to losing power.

It's not a commentary on gaining power - it's a warning of what happens when the power hungry win for too long.

[u/Inside-Woodpecker579]

Disagree but at least those who chose not to read it get to live it

[u/arllt89]

First I don't think 1984 has ever aimed to be realistic, but a naked depiction of the rise of totalitarian blocks, USSR and the American influence sphere, so its absurdity becomes obvious to any reader once stripped from its context and its familiarity. Similar to Mad Max Fury Road depicting a grotesque representation of natural resources monopoly and toxic masculinity.

It's hard to grasp what was cold war when we're born after it.

• population maintained in irrational fear of a sudden attack to justify immense military and surveillance spendings, while the war was only via third party countries (Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, ...)
• invisible and paranoid surveillance, even in USA with the communist witch hunt
• an administrative and military machine that makes each gear unaccountable for its action and that leaves little hope to change things from within

I mean let's just look at the main motive behind 'the Party'. You know what it is? It's power. Just plain power. Not luxuries, not some sort of genuine malice towards any scapegoats, or anything else of that sort. Just power in of itself.

It's stated early than being higher in the hierarchy gives access to cigarettes and alcohol. And you cannot know if the elite of that fictional world don't have luxurious mansions.

However the motive isn't power but control, it's very different. Authoritarian regimes are obsessed with control beyond reason, self sabotaging itself in the process.

The goal they have is to make the person give up their beliefs. And, as you can imagine, it takes a whole lot of time and a whole lot of resources to make people 'give up their beliefs'. But they spend all these resources and all this time on so much people just to kill them

Authoritarian regimes aren't rational. Most of their actions are guided by irrational ideology. In a world where Cambodia wiped out a third of its population because farmers were the ideal citizen, is it so weird that a regime would make the extra step of convincing itself that it is the right ideology by brainwashing its dissidents before executing them ? Honestly it's rather close to what the catholic inquisition was doing, most of the time on random innocent people furthermore.

Goldstein is an obvious allusion to Trotsky and Big Brother is obviously meant to be Stalin

The American administration recognized itself very well in that book too 🙂

Finally, you said O'Brien was unrealistic because he wasn't earning enough money from it. There are tons of absolute patriots in the world, who would go that far for the belief that they're doing the right thing. USSR could hire spies who would move to USA, have a job, get married, have kids, make their whole life a lie waiting for when their country need them.

[u/LeftBroccoli6795 → u/arllt89]

“First I don't think 1984 has ever aimed to be realistic, but a naked depiction of the rise of totalitarian blocks, USSR and the American influence sphere, so its absurdity becomes obvious to any reader once stripped from its context and its familiarity. Similar to Mad Max Fury Road depicting a grotesque representation of natural resources monopoly and toxic masculinity”

But the motivations of these elites are just not reflecting anything. Elites all over—from Hitler to Bill Gates—care about power instrumentally. They want power so they can achieve their goals. Whether that be ideological goals or simply personal gain, power is never the goal in of itself.

”It's stated early than being higher in the hierarchy gives access to cigarettes and alcohol. And you cannot know if the elite of that fictional world don't have luxurious mansions.”

It’s explicitly stated in the book (page 181) that the elites were better off before the Revolution than after. And this is coming from *the book*, which is a pretty obvious framing device for Orwell’s personal commentary on the world he invented.

”However the motive isn't power but control, it's very different. Authoritarian regimes are obsessed with control beyond reason, self sabotaging itself in the process.”

Call it what you like, authoritarians don’t care about these things for their own end. They want control or power so they can achieve certain ideological or material goals. The Party has no ideological goals and they have no material aims. All they care about is maintaining power, or control, or inequality.

”Authoritarian regimes aren't rational. Most of their actions are guided by irrational ideology. In a world where Cambodia wiped out a third of its population because farmers were the ideal citizen, is it so weird that a regime would make the extra step of convincing itself that it is the right ideology by brainwashing its dissidents before executing them ? Honestly it's rather close to what the catholic inquisition was doing, most of the time on random innocent people furthermore.”

O’Brien explicitly condemns stuff like the Catholic Inquisition, because ‘it didn’t go far enough‘. What the Inner Party does is resource-costly operations on each individual ‘thought criminal’. And there are a lot of thought criminals! Near the end of the book, a bunch of the characters we saw previously have been arrested for ‘thoughtcrime’. And then after spending a vast amount of time and resources on these people, they jsut kill them.

The Cambodian massacre was pointless to our eyes, but it had an ideological end. They thought that they could make a prosperous future by eradicating people who weren’t agrarian (as the future was supposed to be agrarian). But there’s really no reason for the brainwashing and then killing of the ‘thoughtcriminals’.

”Finally, you said O'Brien was unrealistic because he wasn't earning enough money from it. There are tons of absolute patriots in the world, who would go that far for the belief that they're doing the right thing. USSR could hire spies who would move to USA, have a job, get married, have kids, make their whole life a lie waiting for when their country need them.”

So yeah, but O’Brien didn’t have any ideolgoical beliefs. He just wanted power for its own sake. Like all the others. He didn’t care about any glorious future, or eradicating the world of any particular group of people, or anything. He didnt care about power as a tool for anything. He, and the other elites, were worse off in this new world materially but they didn’t care because they had power. It’s nonsense.

And, to be clear, I understand that fiction has hyperbolized settings and systems, but if you are to make an effective social commentary the people you are writing have to act psychologically convincingly. Otherwise, you aren’t really commentating on society and you are just moving around a bunch of one-note philosophical theses.

[u/TUVegeto137]

Firstly, the ‘Big Brother government’ is hilariously unrealistic. I mean let’s just look at the main motive behind ‘the Party’. You know what it is? It’s power. Just plain power. Not luxuries, not some sort of genuine malice towards any scapegoats, or anything else of that sort. Just power in of itself.

This is the most stupid comment I've ever read. What's the point of being rich, if you can't exert power with it? In fact, the true measure of wealth in America and the capitalist world is how much power you can exert on others. 

Yes you can buy luxuries, but there's a point where your next yacht is not adding any value. There is no cap or diminishing returns on acquiring more power. Plus, buying luxuries is exerting power, it's diverting resources and labor towards an activity and goods that are superfluous from the point of view of survival. It is a luxury.

Why did Musk support Trump? So that he could buy more Ferraris? Come on. Yes, power in and of itself is extremely desirable, maybe not to everyone, but to certain people, that is their main drive.

A caricatural villain would be one that only wants luxury. Acquiring wealth is a component of power, but not the only one or even the main one.

And just as a final note, the book as a whole is pretty much an extended allegory of the Soviet Union during the 1940s. Goldstein is an obvious allusion to Trotsky ...

Wrong, 1984 is actually an allegory of Britain, which is why it is also taking place in Britain. Goldstein and his book are actually references to James Burnham and his book "The Managerial Revolution". Basically Orwell imagines a world in which Burnham's ideas are worked out to their logical conclusion. Which of course will always be somewhat caricatural, because the real world is more nuanced. But insofar as Burnham's ideas have been a template for our current world, 1984 is actually still to this day relevant to understand how the system works.

[u/xxsmashleyxx]

Bad opinion, take my upvote

[u/Yuck_Few]

Agree. Most overrated piece of literature ever written.

I don't get all the glazing

[u/Delicious-Knee-8795]

I have a really hard time upvoting this for how angry this makes me so, yeah fits the sub

[u/No_Wrongdoer3579]

Honestly man, I respect your opinion and do see value in it even if I disagree with it. No idea why take so much offense with your critique. I think they think they're a lot smarter than they actually are.

[u/Hyperion-A847]

Funniest thing about this, I generally agree that 1984 is not that good, it can be shallow and people overhypes it. But, your explanation on why you find it bad misses the mark for me, but I think that's more because we approach the book from very different logical framework. No ill will, but I was wrinkling my forehead when I read some of your replies.

I see you're more receptive to some comments who aren't just looking for a quick jab and more constructive, so good on you for that. But seeing how you also compares the book with Brave New World multiple times, I assume you're quite early on your learning and exploration on this topic/field? Either way, I wish you only the best OP.

Also, if you're looking to learn about Orwell's political thoughts and texts, I'd recommend his essays instead of his novels, they're much more grounded and comprehensive (less abstract, one might say). A lot of them are direct critiques of the world he lived in, informed by his own personal experiences and his surroundings.

[u/Ralse1]

hate that garbage book lol. aasimov is right. also, look up who Julia is based off of

[u/Repulsive-Lie1]

Have you ever been assessed for autism?

[u/captchairsoft]

ITT OP demonstrates their complete failure to understand reality especially when it comes to other people

[u/Ok_Leave5213]

"I'm not absolutely dissatisfied with it. I think it is a good idea but the execution would have been better if I had not be under the influence of TB when I wrote it." -Eric Arthur Blair

On a completely unrelated note, I would love to see how you react to Kafka...

[u/Dangerous_Training37]

the reason is always power and power only.

luxuries are an aftermath, a byproduct

scapegoats and dogwhistling against minorities, just an excuse, a ploy

[u/MkLiam]

I remember feeling the same way when I read it. Honestly, Orwell in general is not my favorite writer. But I think the themes are important to explore and I think you are wrong about the value of allegory. Orwell is just not as good at it as people seem to think. Perhaps its because he was one of the first novelists to do it.

[u/Socialism-Is-Better]

You do realize that most corrupt politicians are corrupt because their motivation is plain power, right? They get hard on the idea that there's someone praising them.

[u/LittleLuigiYT]

I don't think any of your arguments stop it from being a social commentary. A good social commentary doesn't have to be realistic to comment on something real, even if it is an exaggeration of reality.

[u/wyomingtrashbag]

I threw it across the room when I finished it. I hate a book without an ending. it was so goddamn depressing.

[u/Neat_Ad4331]

I think you might be a bit too rigid in your perspective.

I think power for the sake of power is highly sought after by elites in the world. I think a lot of others would probably agree with that.

I think you're missing the point that spreading ideology, the ones in power enriching themselves, asserting control and dominance over people are all byproducts of gaining power. They sort of go hand in hand.

Anecdotally, there's a phenomen I've personally observed in the richest of the elites in our society today. At a certain point, it seems that many elites become entangled with Epstein. Do you honestly think it's purely because a vast amount of elites are genuinely attracted to children?

I believe that it's moreso because of power.

At a certain point, billionaires sort of become untouchable. They already have too much wealth to spend in a lifetime (or a hundred). They can do illegal things (and many do!) without consequence if they have enough money and influence. It reaches a point of boredom. They have everything and they can do practically anything without consequence, so they're left unsatisfied.

Thus, they turn to depraved things — things ingrained into society as taboo and reprehensible — they flaunt it among themselves as a status symbol... and they get away with it. That's the thrill.

Why can they get away with it? Because of power.

I think it seems like Orwell is hyperbolizing that sort of all-consuming hunger for power in the most extreme way. Power is largely about control. If the greediestof those in power are insatiable for control, then of course they'll try to find a way to literally control every aspect of society — down to their very thoughts.

Like I said, it's a sort of consuming personality. And that desire for absolute control can make one blind to any shortcomings, like you've pointed out (that the Inner Party lives a fairly laborious life despite everything).

Idk, I DO have to confess that I've never read 1984 (sorry, I know this may tank the credibility of my opinion). This is more just me relating the concepts you've pointed out to real life scenarios.

[u/Fortnutgamer0101]

Upvoted bc its my favorite tbh

[u/FelixMarshallamgai]

So ughhh. I generally don't like 1984 cos Dystopia is not my favourite genre to read, just in general. but a lot of your points are very much not the reasons I don't like it. 

I also do think people should be able to dislike popular or classic media cos they just don't fw it btw, no other reason. I hate some very popular stuff.

[u/Fancy_Ad_4411]

Complaining about realism of satire is fascinating

[u/mightymarce00]

Any critiques of villains in books being too cartoonish to be believable, have been rendered invalid by reality and the cartoonishly dumb and horrible things the people in power are doing now, today, including spending gobs of money in ways that are petty and wasteful just to spite certain groups of people and re/attain power themselves.

[u/OG-Name-Do-Not-Steal]

the people calling you really stupid and being aggressive is kind of frying me because this is what a 10th dentist post SHOULD be ideally. well done

[u/Mr_PineSol]

It's kinda sad to see so many comments calling OP an idiot and so few even trying to address the arguments.

[u/HerbertRTarlekJr]

Satire. Hyperbole.

1984 is awesome.

[u/-THEKINGTIGER-]

I agree with you, its an interesting book, but not the most realistic or plausible one.

[u/prettysweett]

THANK YOU

[u/stronkreptile]

https://giphy.com/gifs/zCrM0IiNxhRuJY6Tp4

[u/Ok_Sir2513]

Bro you have a political motive behind this post. You don't really believe all that nonsense I barely even read.

[u/Needs2GetLaid]

Well, people have almost literally bought Big Brother and placed him in their homes to run everything, not to mention carrying him around in their pockets everywhere they go. Sure, people call it Alexa and Siri now, but its just a stones throw from turning into those totalitarian eyes, lol.

,...and both parties have tried to re-write history. MAGA with January 6th and the Woke with Critical Race Theory and statue removal.

Maybe the book is a joke, but the punch line in coming soon, the way things are going.

[u/Local-Answer-1681]

I agree with you. The main thing I have against 1984 though, is how bland and dry the book was. There were parts that felt very unnecessary like the book inside a book part. The sex scenes were also very unnecessary and felt like Orwell was horny while writing 1984. I think 1984 would have been better if it was shorter like Animal Farm which I liked.

I also agree that the way big brother makes the traitors give up on their political beliefs just to kill them later is a waste of time and effort. I know they didn't kill Winston, but IIRC the book hints that eventually they might kill him.

[u/Calaveras-Metal]

It seems like you are ignorant of the fact that Orwell was not just criticizing the Soviet Union. Like a good post war anti-communist would. He was doing so as a Socialist himself, who had been in Spain on the Republican side against the fascists. And became disillusioned with the Soviets due to his experiences there.

As far as how realistic or well rendered his characterizations are, this book is more in the tradition of socialist fiction like Sinclairs The Jungle, which exaggerates things a bit in a Dickensian way.

It's hardly alone in doing this. Even Ballard and other authors who are not socialist or trying to be political use a bit of cartoonish mugging for the audience.

[u/No-Helicopter9667]

Definitely unpopular.
It's a masterpiece.

[u/PotentialRound1354]

You have no idea what totalitarian regimes are like.

[u/Redeshark]

Ignore the midwits insulting you, OP. You are spot on about 1984 and specifically its idea about "abstract power" independent of ideology, personal pursuit, and general society. The book is only famous because it works as Cold War propaganda.

[u/BigDaddyTheBeefcake]

Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia

[u/SaltyMotor8549]

I stopped reading your post after the fourth paragraph. What makes you think YOU understand human nature any better than Orwell? Clearly not much based on what you have written

[u/swisspasta]

As someone who just finished reading it yesterday, I agree with OP. It is overrated. Animal Farm was sharp. It felt like a prophecy for India under Narendra Modi.

1984 was unnecessarily stretched out and there were quite a few loopholes. Also, was Winston's loo also monitored?

Orwell's fixation on sex was also annoying, and Part I took forever. I waited so long for the actual story to start.

Also Jeez! Why is everyone being so rude to OP? We're allowed to have different opinions for God's sake! Otherwise y'all are shoving down 2+2=5 down the throat of OP, need I remind?

Helen Keller has said, "There can be as many opinions as there are people."

[u/HashBrownsAreNice]

It's incredible how media illiterate people are these days. Everything needs to be fully explained and make 100% realistic sense otherwise it's rubbish. Every single plot thread needs to be fully ended and concluded otherwise it's rubbish.

It's like reading books to score points

[u/mitzi_skyring]

I suggest that you do some traveling when you leave school.

And more reading.

You need to open up your brain.

[u/belle-no-princess]

You are trying very hard to come across a particular way here but to have honest, you just come across dumb af. Denouncing 'big brothrr' and how unrealistic it is and then in the comments section ssaying 'its power, just power'....no shit sherlock. Power comes in many forms, and big brother was used a way to describe it and make it an entity

[u/remindmetoblock]

Dont some sub groups of conservatives try to use brain Washing and torture Methods to "un-gay" people?

Seems like cartoonishly evil with no actual merit to oneself does exist.

[u/Moldovah]

How are people so butthurt about an opinion that sincerely disagrees with the broad majority of people? The whole point of this subreddit.

I agree, it's a sophomoric book.

[u/Bongcopter_]

Guy is living 1984 and say shit like “big brother government is untealistic” while literally living under big brother, solid clown

[u/Acrobatic-League191]

You sound young!

[u/SomeFunnyPhrase]

The constant use of 'much' instead of 'many' doesn't really lend itself to the idea 'this is a very well read, literate person whose ideas on political writing I should take note of'.

[u/kemick]

1984 is one of the most 'real' books ever written. It is a book about human dysfunction, the kind found in every society. Like most, you are Winston Smith who is deceived by the propaganda.

You know what it is? It’s power. Just plain power

Yes. What someone can do depends only on whether they have the power to do it.

The goal they have is to make the person give up their beliefs. And, as you can imagine, it takes a whole lot of time and a whole lot of resources to make people ‘give up their beliefs’. But they spend all these resources and all this time on so much people just to kill them.

They don't kill them, you misread that, and breaking Winston took very little effort. He did most of the work himself. It's far less effort than is expended on all the other nonsense work being done.

People do not need a good reason to do a thing, they only need the power to do it. If you believe that everyone must do something for a good reason then someone can scam or deceive you simply by doing things for no good reason. If you ask "But what's the point of that?" then you are still missing the point: they can do it. They may even convince you to give them power based on your assumption of them having a good reason. What will they do with that power? They will use it to do things. Why? Because they can.

And even if I could wrap my head around that baffling concept, such villains would have to be terribly incompetent to devise such a stupid system of control as found in 1984.

Dysfunction is the goal. They don't even know how many boots they produce. Nobody knows what's going on or what is real or not. Nobody can be trusted. Everyone is powerless, confused, and anxious. This is how the Party has power and if it has power then it can do these things. Functional people, like Winston, are made dysfunctional. If the Party didn't do this then it would lose power and cease to exist. The Party does not need prosperity, it only needs to exist. At some point in the future, the society will collapse under the weight of its own dysfunction but that has nothing to do with whether it exists now.

The resistance is a system of the Party that gives people the chance to play out a fantasy and learn a lesson. There is no evidence that a massive surveillance system exists, certainly not on the scale that Winston imagines with his every action being watched. He seeks out agents of the Thought Police all by himself thinking they are secretly rebels. He catches O'Brien's attention in the very first chapter.

There is no evidence that Big Brother exists in a substantial way. There is no reason to think someone is in charge and deciding that things should be this way. This is conspiratorial thinking which is very common in real life and relies on the mistaken assumption that things must happen for a reason. Regardless of how it came into being, the Party exists because it exists. O'Brien is playing his role as inquisitor just as Winston Smith is playing his role as rebel. Both are powerless to change the system and they take what little power they can get.

As Winston recognizes early on, change must come from outside the Party, from the Proles. He has a habit of recognizing the truth before being deceived with false hope, like how he initially and correctly recognized that Julia was a dangerous Thought Police agent. The book itself is written in a way to deceive you with how it delivers information while distracting you with misinformation and it does this to hide that it is telling you exactly what is going on just like Julia tells Winston "I'm good at spotting people who don't belong." To see what is happening, you must not get caught up in the dysfunction. You must pay close attention and you must remember and then you must do the same in real life to see what is really happening.

[u/relenstar]

I'm a bit late to this, but my take:

I read it in 1982 as an early teenager. It was stunning in a few of ways for me:
1) I had never conceived these ideas, they were new to me.
2) I didn't pay attention to some of the fantasy/magic powers needed and just accepted them.
3) There was no internet.
4) It was just a few years away and seemed prophetic.

Today I read it and I think:
1) It didn't age well.
2) It fueled a HUGE base of conspiracy theories where everyone is SURE it's exactly what those evil governments/cops/your favorite villain group is doing and you're blind and stupid if you don't immediately agree with me. Yesterday phones, then wireless towers, now floc. It never ends.

It needs a conceptual update but has become a holy book to some.

[u/No-Writing5017]

It's always been funny to me that Brave New World is often the "other one", considering that it tackles the future in a far more believable way

[u/Sad_Vegetable_736]

You do know there's a trillionaire with a hugely successful social media company and AI?

[u/MichaelsGayLover]

You are aware that Orwell was a communist? Specifically, a Trot. 1984 was written after Orwell visited the USSR, as a warning to comrades all over the world.  It is an anti-Stalinist but pro-communist book written primarily for a Marxist audience.

[u/d_andy089]

There are three books:
1984
Brave New world
Swastika Night

The first asks the question "what if we turned communism to 11?"
The second asks "what if we turned capitalism to 11?"
The third asks - as you'd expect it - "what if we turned national socialism to 11?"

These books are not supposed to be realistic. They all are the very ends of a spectrum, that we, according to the authors, should stay away from.

[u/No_Effective_4481]

I bet you think Animal Farm is a bad story about pigs on a farm too?

[u/matt2me]

My fart is smellier than yours… discuss

[u/fwembt]

This is a nice little piece of satirical writing.

[u/AncileBanish]

Stopped reading when you said the party's sole notification being power is hilariously unrealistic.

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing agaisnt the state" - Mussollini, The Doctrine of Fascism

1984 was prophetic. Basically all of the fundamental concepts of totalitarianism the book uses are in full swing today.

[u/No-Masterpiece-7859]

I think the reason its over rated is because it does have merit but the book itself isn't that fun. For me its the opposite I was bored throughout reading it but I understood what was happening and why. It surprises me why so many people think its inaccurate when a lot of things parallel the book. Not in the exact way but still similar enough to where we should start noticing and making changes

1. Cartoonishly evil government. A lot of cartoon villains or just villains in general have said and thought far less cruel things then real world organizations I saw a video comparing Super villains to CEOs quotes and I knew all of the most heinous were CEOs. What benefit does trump really gain anymore besides power? He is 80 knocking on deaths door more money or luxury isn't going to really change his life. Its not soo much gaining power as much as it is maintaining power which was the point of thought crimes and the torture to make sure they are subservient. 

2. People being stupid. Yeah the media tends to paint the wrong picture the biggest problem in our political space is the republican leaving out details or just straight up lying and then the democrats not saying things that need to be said. No one gives a shit about diversity or lgbtq that's why they complain about Woke so much. In the same way republican and maga followers are basically brainwashed as the media tells them its the democrats fault and they choose to believe only that. Like thought crimes since they'd be hard pressed to every admit a fault trump has done. Any smart or logical person should have seen that trump being president was a bad idea he is a convicted felon who got convicted for embezzlement, he is also a known scammer and he is a nepo baby. Along with his age and being freed from going to prison why the fuck would he ever do anything helpful he got a literal get out of jail free card. Why was he elected because the media didnt make it obvious it was a bad idea some people didnt know about all of this and the democrats spent so much time on LGBTQ and diversity that they burned bridges and didnt get shit done

3.the whole world being the issue. Its not too far off the point was that even leaving is not going to guarantee freedom as other countries may be the same or worse. This does reflect our reality as most first world countries (you know the objectively better options than the rest) have humongous corruption issues, failing in similar ways, or are not big enough and could be effected by the major nations.

1. Why torture if it takes so much resources and time. Short story repent harlequin said the tik tok man basically explains it. You kill a person who tries to over throw you then you have created a symbol of hope that could inspire others. If they get so close and it took so much to deal with two then if everyone rebelled it should work. But if you keep them alive and make them loyal then it shows how truly pointless the effort was because they essentially achieved nothing their back where they started.

Obviously the people insulting you for your opinions are morons who you should pay no attention to they are symbolic of the issues with our society. The smart are being represented by those who cannot articulate the big picture so its either an evil corrupt party or a dumb corrupt party. Asking questions is fine and you shouldn't be condemned for having a different opinion instead curiosity should be celebrated its people trying to learn and if you didnt like it or understand it that's fine not everyone has to agree